This isn't a situation where I'd expect an apology, because there is nothing to be sorry about. It's a philosophical debate, and I wish you'd simply
reconsider your position on the issue. No apology is necessary and I certainly hope you wouldn't expect one from me if I happened to switch positions
due to your persuasive arguments.

In this particular case however, you've contradicted yourself as far as what you see as "morally relative" and what you see as "evil". That doesn't
necessitate an apology, so much as an admission of error.

The point I was failing to make to you is that morality is subjective and cultural and lives within time-frames. Those features make it relative.

Abuse is currently part of 'extraordinary rendition' and seen as justifiable in the face of terrorism. Slavery was once the cultural norm. In
Northern Ireland, it was (until recently) morally okay to murder civilians for political ends. Same back in Pinochet's Argentina. Starving people was
deemed morally justifiable during WW2/Cold War by Soviets and Germans as it served a propaganda purpose and saved on resources. Sure, morally
despicable in our view, but none of those involved in the above actively decided to 'do evil.' They all believed what they were doing was for a
greater good and a brighter future - acceptable in other words.

The point I was failing to make to you is that morality is subjective and cultural and lives within time-frames. Those features make it relative.

Abuse is currently part of 'extraordinary rendition' and seen as justifiable in the face of terrorism. Slavery was once the cultural norm. In
Northern Ireland, it was (until recently) morally okay to murder civilians for political ends. Same back in Pinochet's Argentina. Starving people was
deemed morally justifiable during WW2/Cold War by Soviets and Germans as it served a propaganda purpose and saved on resources. Sure, morally
despicable in our view, but none of those involved in the above actively decided to 'do evil.' They all believed what they were doing was for a
greater good and a brighter future - acceptable in other words.

Yet you are clearly pointing these issues out as morally objectionable while claiming morality is relative. You are not presenting a logical
case for moral relativity, at all.

Allow me to paint a rather terrible picture for you: If we take people from all tribes and all societies, and we subtract religion or spiritual
beliefs from them completely, and rely solely on a darwinist outlook, and then present them with the concept of raping babies, they will still be
naturally horrified. Why is that?

You have no logical grounds for moral relativism. Nobody has yet provided grounds for it, even amongst far greater minds than our own. The notion that
morality is an evolutionary trait that is completely subjective to cultural factors crumbles under the light of reason every time.

Allow me to paint a rather terrible picture for you: If we take people from all tribes and all societies, and we subtract religion or spiritual
beliefs from them completely, and rely solely on a darwinist outlook, and then present them with the concept of raping babies, they will still be
naturally horrified. Why is that?

You'd prefer to use the above scenario rather than simply accepting that morality is clearly relative. Dictating the terms of discussion to validate
an erroneous contention isn't accepted in healthy debates.

You have no logical grounds for moral relativism. Nobody has yet provided grounds for it, even amongst far greater minds than our own. The notion that
morality is an evolutionary trait that is completely subjective to cultural factors crumbles under the light of reason every time.

You haven't refuted any of the examples provided so there hasn't been any 'crumbling' and the 'light' is fairly dim. I have to admit to being
bemused that anyone could take the position you've chosen to take. That we share the same sense of moral values and can still argue that others have
different moral values makes it crystal clear that it's all relative.

You'd prefer to use the above scenario rather than simply accepting that morality is clearly relative. Dictating the terms of discussion to validate
an erroneous contention isn't accepted in healthy debates.

Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one. The scenario I presented is relevant to the discussion. Repeating your position without refuting mine
does not make the former any more valid.

You haven't refuted any of the examples provided so there hasn't been any 'crumbling' and the 'light' is fairly dim. I have to admit to being bemused
that anyone could take the position you've chosen to take. That we share the same sense of moral values and can still argue that others have different
moral values makes it crystal clear that it's all relative.

Maybe we aren't on the same page here...

I felt I didn't need to "refute" any of your examples since you clearly framed them in negative moral terms. As for your bemusement, I'm glad I
provide you with such entertainment. However, I have made excellent points on moral relativism and while you'd like to make me out to be a simpleton,
far greater minds have poked holes in your logic.

As an example, You claim that we share the same sense of moral values yet still argue about others as some sort of proof of moral relativism without
considering your initial premise: "We share the same sense of moral values".

These moral values are inherent in all of us, regardless of culture, creed, race, sexuality, etc. As a species we find certain acts universally
revolting. The fact you continue to deny this because... well... because why?

I do believe you're missing the point and getting a tad hot under the collar.

Morality is relative to the time and location we live in. Kandinsky has given some excellent examples of this, nobody has suggested that raping babies
is morally acceptable in any society and I find your harking back to it somewhat disturbing.

May I suggest you walk away, take a few deep breathes, calm down and come back this debate ?

I see what you're getting at but, what if evil people believe that there is life after death, but that they won't be held accountable for their
actions after death?

In essence, their evil ways are to satisfy their existence on earth, without the fear of judgement later on.

If such a situation in life and death was true, people would run riot doing whatever they want, because in the end it either doesn't matter because
nothing exists or it doesn't matter because there is no Hell to go to.

Which brings us to the importance of order here on earth. There must be fear of punishment or else the only fear in this life is pain, and that's
usually not enough on its own to stop people from committing heinous acts.

What I mean when I say order, is a story so powerful it can bend the behavior of all but the most evil in this world.

As an example, You claim that we share the same sense of moral values yet still argue about others as some sort of proof of moral relativism without
considering your initial premise: "We share the same sense of moral values".

These moral values are inherent in all of us, regardless of culture, creed, race, sexuality, etc. As a species we find certain acts universally
revolting. The fact you continue to deny this because... well... because why?

You and I live within an epoch, at a certain place and immersed in our cultures. If we were Mongols during the time of Ghengis Khan, we'd share moral
values that included killing siblings, raping women and torturing our enemies whether they were a babe-in-arms or an old person.

I used to study psychology at Uni and stages of moral reasoning were part of our courses. A young child will often cheat to win a game whilst an older
child will realise that abiding by the rules actually increases their chances of winning in the long term. These are referred to as 'stages' and we
go through them as we age with some never really getting past the first two. On an individual level, our morality isn't fixed and can change
according to time and environment.

When extended across societies, we also see different stages of moral reasoning. As mentioned, American society is broadly supportive of capital
punishment and sees it as moral for society. On the other hand, in Europe capital punishment is seen as immoral and rejected by society. Most of
Europe and the USA share common values and yet we also have great differences in what we view as morality thus making it relative.

These moral values are inherent in all of us, regardless of culture, creed, race, sexuality, etc. As a species we find certain acts universally
revolting. The fact you continue to deny this because... well... because why?

How can they be 'inherent in all of us' when the cultural and historical evidence presents moral values as differing profoundly across the world.

Worthwhile imo. Not sure what's funnier, your inability to see the self-contradictions in your arguments or the threat of a posting ban if I continue
disagreeing with you on an ancient philosophical issue.

Worthwhile imo. Not sure what's funnier, your inability to see the self-contradictions in your arguments or the threat of a posting ban if I continue
disagreeing with you on an ancient philosophical issue.

I am leaning on the philosophy that people who commit heinous murderous and/or violent degrading acts upon others are seriously mentally imbalanced,
so can we really apply the term 'evil' here?

In regards to your theory that one aspect of an 'evil'? imbalanced mind may be in their belief that all life is meaningless because we are all going
to die (in whichever way; diseases, old age, nuclear bomb, violence, exploding sun, asteroid impact, accident) could very well be one small component
of some imbalanced people's thought processes. However, from the article I posted below, the human imbalanced mind is capable of imaginging and
creating many different psychotic scenarios and justifications for abherrent behaviour - sometimes through dream/sleep and/or subconsciousness states
as well.

2) I've given you many examples of how you have contradicted yourself. You resorted to threatening me with a posting ban (even though you're not a
mod).

Look... You need to understand the terms you are attempting to argue. If you are arguing relative morality, you have lost the debate on the first
page. Go re-read it. I can't be bothered at this point.

You can make me a new avatar though, if you get bored in the meantime.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.